Reporting completeness in abstracts of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in cardiovascular diseases is suboptimal

Abstract

Objective: Journal abstracts are crucial for the identification and initial assessment of content of studies. We evaluated whether authors in the field of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) reported Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews (DTA SRs) abstracts adequately, as defined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-DTA guidelines. Methods: SRs of DTA studies in CVDs published in general and specialized medical journals were identified in a MEDLINE search between 2010 and 2020. Adherence to 12 PRISMA-DTA for abstracts items was assessed independently by two reviewers and compared by journal's type. Moreover, the association of reporting completeness with different characteristics was investigated. Results: We included 72 abstracts. Studies published in general medical journals had higher mean reporting score than those in specialized journals (6.2 vs. 5.3 out of 12 items; mean difference: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.21, 1.55). PRISMA-DTA adherence was higher in journals that adopted this guideline and in articles with structured abstracts. However, number of participants analyzed, funding, and registration were the least-reported items in the identified abstracts. Conclusion: The reporting of abstracts of DTA reports in CVDs is suboptimal according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines. Abstract reporting could be improved with the use of higher word count limits and the adoption of PRISMA-DTA guidelines especially in specialized journals.

Keywords

• Reporting completeness
• Abstract
• Systematic review
• Diagnostic accuracy studies
• PRISMA-DTA statement